I dunno. Years ago i encoded with mpc -standard. In recent times I tried lame -V3. Very similar bitrate to mpc / nero 0.5 and you what: its not too bad at all. Most tracks are transparent with headphones or close to it. It doesn't have the annoying scfb21 issue , its VBR and unlike mpc , its compatible with nearly anything out there Mp3gain works on all hardware too. I guess i still really like efficiency .

So What i'm saying is that everything now is 250~300k. So why not just 256-320 CBR using lame from 2000 ? Its virtually the same. We have advanced so much yet ended up in the same place.

I came back to mp3 for the same reasons you've mentioned. And it's good enough for me.Sure moderate bitrate users take better profit from Lame improvements. Whether or not that's essential is personal judgement.

Oops, I didn't read carefully. Where's the result for 3.99? 3.97 -V0 better than 3.98.4 -V0 on trumpet? That can't be true. 3.97 had the sandpaper noise issue which 3.98 improved upon, and for 3.97 trumpet was a problem, whereas at least I am pretty content with 3.98.4 -V0 on it.

In other words You can perform the blind tests for some particular sample again and again during one day but it doesn't guarantee the same results if you will perform it next day/week. I think what really counts it is a tendency (many results) not particular one result.

It wasn't. The absense of the score in ABX log means 5.0. But as I said it _was_. Now I listened it the second time and alter the initial perception completely. The results have changed drastically. That's why I did quite a lot of samples (18 actually but didn't post them here) . It reveals the average tendency because most of all I care about average score. While there can be a statistical noise on single results.

...Different conditions: listener, hardware, room, time, mood and ... familiarity with sample and/or artifact (see below) ...The absense of the score in ABX log means 5.0. But as I said it _was_. Now I listened it the second time and alter the initial perception completely. The results have changed drastically. That's why I did quite a lot of samples (18 actually but didn't post them here) . It reveals the average tendency because most of all I care about average score. While there can be a statistical noise on single results.

I know the problem of different results with different tests very well. Ran upon it when testing lossyWav. It's annoying.But in cases where I get totally different perceptions I'd rather not use the results. I'd only use results for those samples for which I can get perceptions which more or less reliably differentiate encoder versions.

If the a priori preferred encoder result of a sample is harder to ABX against the original (if in doubt because of equal or near-equal scores use the time it takes for ABXing as a measure for it) than is the alternative, this is kind of a confirmation for your initial perception. This is not foolproof of course, but it makes judgements on encoder results a little bit less personal.

As for my favorite mp3 problem sample trumpet I'd love to learn about your new results.

As for my favorite mp3 problem sample trumpet I'd love to learn about your new results.

I have no problem to provide the results. The problem is that they are variable.During the day I have made 5 times the same trumpet sample. Now 3.98.4 was the best. All 5 times it was 3.98.4>3.97>3.99b0. When I got back home at night and made the same test twice and twice time it was 3.98.4>3.99b0>3.97.

Possible explanation is the the conditions of the test have changed.During the day the level of noise was quite high at home (cars). The night was quite.

Thanks a lot for your efforts.As far as 3.98.4 is concerned your overall results on trumpet agree with mine (definitely compared to 3.97, but I can't talk about 3.99b0 which I have no experience with, just with early alpha versions with which I could not hear an improvement on trumpet).

As for my favorite mp3 problem sample trumpet I'd love to learn about your new results.

I have no problem to provide the results. The problem is that they are variable.During the day I have made 5 times the same trumpet sample. Now 3.98.4 was the best. All 5 times it was 3.98.4>3.97>3.99b0. When I got back home at night and made the same test twice and twice time it was 3.98.4>3.99b0>3.97.

Possible explanation is the the conditions of the test have changed.During the day the level of noise was quite high at home (cars). The night was quite.

I've been meaning to ask about this "phenomenon" before. Does this indicate that, for example, the last public test @96 kbps would come out differently if the same people did the tests a second time? I mean, if the artifacts are so subtle and it has a lot to do with your own personal state of mind (eg. tired, bored, stressed out etc.), the outcome is mererly a result of the testers' shape that day, and not so much the encoder itself? Just a thought...

The outcome can change, but as there are many testers who contributed to the listening test, I can't imagine things would change significantly.The exact numerical outcome shouldn't be taken too serious anyway, and the confidence intervals should be respected.

The main outcome of the test can be trusted IMO which is:- Apple Quicktime is better than Nero- Apple Quicktime TVBR is not better than CVBR- new FhG encoder is in the quality range of Apple Quicktime- CT encoder is between Apple Quicktime and Nero qualitywise- looking at the outcome of the individual samples there is no significant deviation of relative encoder quality from the average outcome over all the samples. As a consequence looking at the average result is sufficient for comparing encoder quality (with the last mp3@128 kbps test it was a different story).- at least for the better encoders quality is very high for 96 kbps encodings - with sample 3 being an exception to this.

Does this indicate that, for example, the last public test @96 kbps would come out differently if the same people did the tests a second time?

No, it wouldn't be different at all. This phenomenon is canceled between different results of the listeners. It will be already canceled on large number of the samples for the same listener.Testing AAC at 96 kbps isn't the same thing as testing LAME V0 (far from that). The correlation between the average results and results of particular listener was quite high (70%).

John, there is something very odd with your x86-32 build, it's way too slow.Just for comparison, mine compiled with VC9 Express edition (32 bits, haven't figured out how to set it up for x86-64 builds), running on AMD Athlon 64 X2, Win7-64:

Robert, having just tested the 32bit compile on a 1075T, hex core @3.6, it runs at about half the speed of the 64 bit compile, which is bizarre to say the least! I can't immediately think of anything that may be responsible, but I'll look into it and report back.

Last Edit: 03 October, 2011, 12:23:24 PM by db1989

John----------------------------------------------------------------My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

The testing I have done suggests that the speed of these is very little different on Intel CPUs to what it was using the Intel compiler. However, on AMD (I only have the hex core 1075T to test on) the x64 compile is around the same speed as before, but the x86 compile is around 50% faster.

I'd be interested in other peoples experiences and any other comments.

John----------------------------------------------------------------My compiles and utilities are at http://www.rarewares.org/

Your new Intel compiles seem OK, the x64-32 improved from 22 to 15 seconds in the same test as before.I couldn't test your VS2008 ones, I was too late to the party, as you already replaced them with the IC ones. Thanks John.